Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-26-68O I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGF, OF ALLEG?ANCB ,...-_ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING =, TUSTIN PLANNING CObT<•1ISSION August 26, 1968 i The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Halus. Led by Mr. Sharp may. III. Present: Commissioners: Sharp, Oster, Ludwig, Halus, ROLL Larnard, Mahoney, Webster CALL (Mr. Webster•arrived at 7:45 P~~I) Absent: None ~• • Others James G. Rourke, City Attorney Present: James L. Supinger, Planning Director • Doreen Henson, Acting Secretary IV. ' • APPR. OF • MINUTES V. PUELIC HEARINGS . . 1. UP-68-268 - CHEMOLD COa1PA1`'Y ON BEHALF OF TUSTIN HARDWARE To permit the•display of a redwood building approximately 12 ft. R 16 ft. for sAles aid purposes. Site is at the northwest corner .of the intersection of Main and "D" Streets, adjacent to and east of existing building numbered 115 West Main Street. Mr. Supint~er informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting the application be withdratm. • S, that UP-68-268 be 2. V-68-216 - ROTERT E. WILDE To permit: w F a.) Minimtma lot size 4000 sq. ft. b.) Minimum open space 40% (uncovered patios, walks, laems and other landscaping). c.) Minimtun lot frontage of 50 feet provided, •however, said frontage may be reduced to 30 feet at the property line on cul-de-sac turn around. d.) Mfninum front setback 10 feet provided, however, .that setbakl: may be reduced to 4 feet for a maximum of 40% of the total lot frontage. e.) Minimtnn rear setback 10 feet provided, however, that said setback may be educed to 4 feet for a maxfsnum of 40% of 'the total rear line 'distance. f.) Minimum side setback O.fect on one side provided that the opposite side have a minimu-t setback of 4 feet for not more than 40% of the total side lot line and of more than 4 feet for the remainder of said lot line. Site fronts at>nro::i.-~+a!•~ly 70 feet on ~:~e ::est sic?e of Camo1l ;'~~y c~n~: 30 iee~ on Lh nor~h site of ?Tedford Avenue. S:~id Pr.oilerty i.s botu.dc~i by ~[:e i:acaport )'rcc~-4y G.1 L'ii:, \•:i'SC, S11Z;;1G :Irli.lj' (~•:'.•'~.Oi7ii:^ilt Oil ti1C •' 1~02'riJ•':131:~ itlZii V'4'.f~il~ CC:~.I'1i:rC].al ~)LC•^C?'1.1' ~t12 ~.~li• SOlll:jl.. (' ~' PC piiu4L-es - AubusL• ZG, 1965 ~~...: Mr. Supinger stated that the land is contiguous to C-1 and. level with the Netaport Freeway. Subject property would serve as buffer to R-1 tracts to east and north. He said the staff recommended approval for the following reasons: '1. That the adjustment hereby authorized will not . constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property - is situated. 2. That because of special circumstances applicable to •' the subject property, including size, shape, topography location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance Grill deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence intro- duced at the hearing are included by reference and' made a part of the motion. - Recommended conditions of approval are: 1. Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps. 2. Approval of plot plans and elevations for each lot by the Architectural Committee. 3.~ Approval of plans for recreational area by the Architectural Committee. Mr. Halus opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Robert E. Wilde, 1943 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana, stated he fs the owner/developer of this property. He said that at the time of the former hearing he expressed the thought that the property from his standpoint had to be developed by necessity. He stated he was back to submit a plan which he felt would be agreeable to everyone. He feels it is a good layout for this particular piece of property, which is a problem piece of property, and hoped the Commission would approve. Mr. Wilde stated that his Architect, Pir. Frank Morris, was with him to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. Frank Morris, 18121 Fourth Street, Tustin, stated he is the Architect of this project and submitted the plot plan. He said they property is below the on-ramp to the freeway and in this situation they had designed the tract, trying to provide housing and open space and yet trying to put their back door to the freeway. He stated it is very difficult to please everyone but in this situation with the freeway and freeway noise and the property also being contiguous to the south to commercial property and ofi- to the corner, the back end is Ralph's, which is a problem. They have asked for smaller lots and are trying to develop patio housing -- 0 lot line to one side. They have floor plans but dsd not think it perti.i:ent to bring floor plans because they are trying to present a concept rather than the plans themselves. Mr. Oster asked rir. Morris if the houses would be one or two story. Mr. T"forris replied that all those presented so far were one story, but that he would like to put the master bedroom above the garage on the number: 2 plan. Mr. Edward 1)y_er, 13672 Yorba Street, stated he was a homeocmcr and ta~n<1yer. He did not thinl; the Council should oennit this request t:o be honored as it would co~~rletely divorce this type cf pro;~erty from the preser+.t tape of ~ropert;~. He regt!ested ti!at the Council deny t:iis p•~tition. itr, idi?. ?.i.r,!~! ('i ?.n~re, 13771 ]'<1].acc 1•'z}~, 1sl:~.cl 1!a;•~ m^n~ ull3.ts • . .' ti; Y~ ~•ar~: rira tl~.c sru~'i~e fn~<<<:c ~•:^r.~ liviiir; ~rC%1,. ~ . PC I•liuutes - August 2G, 196 .-M-•-= Mr. Morris advised the living area would range from no less than 1600 sq. ft. to 2000 sq. it. -- 40 residential lots. r Mr. George Brewer, 13791 Palace Way, asked if the property ' owners are supposed to be~notified of any variance changes. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff is currently using the March, 1967 assessment roles;~that an effort has been made ~ to notify and send staff reports to people whom it was felt would be interested"in this. He stated the staff report indicated that a copy had been sent to Mr. Brewer and to Mr. Sinclair because Mr. Brewer seemed to be the spokesman last time for Via Venida and Mr. Sinclair seemed to be the spokesman for the people in the Tustin North Tract. Mr. Brewer stated he received nothing and to his knowledge no one in the tract received anything. He said he was not the spokesman for Via Venida; only for himself. He went on to say that at the last Council Meeting when this matter was discussed, Mr. Bonner was instructed to notify every voter of any proposed change in this property. He requested that this matter be postponed until the plans are completely formalized. His primary concerti was the density. Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Rourke if this meeting had been legally and properly noticed.' .~ i Mr. Rourl~e said the requirement is to notify all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property as those names appeared on the last equalized assessment xole. The last equalized assessment role was in 1967; the new one. will be finished ~in the next month. The meeting has been noticed in accordance caith the law.. If the Council or Commission or anyone else requested that other notices be sent, it would not be required by lava. It was•his opinion that most of the present property ocmers were not on the assessment roles in March of 1967. Mr. Sharp stated that rather than being a matter of law, it was probably a matter of practicality and it would appear the majority of the people interested had been missed. Mr. Felix Barsonti Jr., 13751 Fairmont, stated he was opposed to this variance change, mainly 'because of the density. He strongly recommended that before a decision is made, the residents in the area have an opportunity to hear the details. Mr. Webster commented that at the previous hearing concerning this property; reference was made to Tree Haven and he wished to point out that this present proposal was a much less dense one than Tree Haven. ~~ Mr. Randall, 13751 Fairmont, lives adjacent to the property in question and wanted to know what price homes these would be. Mr. Wilde was asked this question by Chairman Halus and replied they would be from $25,000 to $30,000 homes. i Miss Onnolee Elliott, 13631 Yorba Street, Santa Ana,!stated that slie believed the minimum lot size in the Toctin of Tustin to be 7200 sq. ft. and with no side setback on one side, all of the setbacks are one-half or one-tenth of what the normal code is for this development. In her opinion there would be a great ntunber of individuals in a small area and they c:oc:ld be nothing but tenements. She said the tahole lot -- house, garage and all could be put inside her house. She said the average family these days has 4 to 6 children and there would be .200 children in this small az~ea who caould be going to Tustin -3- -~ G/ ® A G ~ PC i•iir_utes - August 26,x.968 . '~ Schools which ~5e have to pay for. She also commented that the average family has 2, 3, and 4 cars and wanted to know where all these cars here going to be parked. She felt it would also be afire trap with only one opening. ~ • 1 ' !Vincent Let~~, 12782 Palace Way, wanted to~know if these variances should be approved, must tahat is proposed be built or can something else be constructed. lie did not feel it fair to put something there that is not really commensurate with something thati already e~cists.•.He felt the small area around the proposed homes was not fair to the people who would live there. He requested the proposal not be approved.' Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Mahoney asked Mr•. Supinger how these homes compared with the project that Dick Smith has on Walnut. Mr. Supinger replied that the density and price.raige would compare with that project; the only difference he was able to find was 4' in street right-of-way which is a reduction of 2' on each side of the street and 2' difference in the park'c~ay. Mr. Halus coattnented that he thought the lots were a little su~aller in the Dick Smith development. At this point, Mr. Halus stated that a five minute recess had been requested by one of the Commissioners (8:40 PDi). Chairman Halus reconvened the meeting at 8:45 iTi. Mr. Sharp ~aslced of the staff if there would be planted parkways and also if the driveway aprons were large enough to park a car on them. Mr. Supinger.replied that there were no planted parkways; the proposal is to put the sidewalk adjacent to the curb. There is a recommendation relative to this from the City Engineer. The seL-backs to the garage on a majority of 'the lots would not be adequate depth to park a car on the driveway apron. -~ Mr. Oster coamented that he felt the density was too high and ~ - also he felt the wishes of the property ocaners in the area should be considered. Mr. Oster moved and Mrs. Ludwig seconded that V-28-216 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the adjustment applied for will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district- in which the property is situated. 2. That special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography location or surroundings, do not, because of the strict appli- cation of the zoning ordinance, deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classificat7on. 3. As additional grounds, the minutes and evidence introduced at the hearing 'are included by re~erence and made a part of the motion. Mr. Hal.us stated that an affirmative vote precludes any discussion of this motion. Vote by roll call: Ayes: Sharp, Oster, Ludwig, Larn~rd. Noes: ~Sahoney, Webster, lialus. l~totio:i carries'. !~ to 3. _l -4- ;. _ .. PC t•1i~iutes - August 26, 196 • ..«--= . 3. `'.UP-68-267 - MIG'9fiAEL J. FERGUSON To permit a privately operated recreatirnial facility (dancing, including live entertainment). Site is in . Jamestown Village Shopping Center and is the site of existing building numbered 540 South "D" Strcet.~ Mr. Swinger stated that the applicant's justification was s~ ~ to have a place in Tustin where the younger aged people will -~ ~ ~ have a place to go to dance. and to keep them off the streets ;;, with nothing to do or a place to go. . Mr. Suninger advised that the staff recommends approval subject to the suggestions of the Fire Department and approval of proposed live entertainment by the License and Permit Board. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing. Michael J. Ferguson, 1231 Southeast Skyline, stated there would be no alcoholic beverages on the premises. It would be open from 8:00 PM until Midnight, he hoped every night, but did not~know for sure if this would be possible. On Friday and Saturday nights he intends to have "After Hours" from 12:15 AM until 6:00 AM. The hall will be cleared at Midnight and no one under 18 years will be•allowed ir- for the "After Hours" activities; identification will be checked. There will be five members of his staff present as well as 2 police•officers on duty. Admission will be $1.50 and thos attending "After Hours" will be required to pay admission again. Mrs. Ludcaig expressed concern for the noise because of the senior citizens in the area. • Mr. Boosey, 460 South "D" Street, Dale Crawford Estates, resides adjacent to the property in question and requested some restriction during the week because of the noise. Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hearing. •~Chairman Halus commented that he felt there was a very great need in Tustin for well-supervised entertainment of this sort. He felt there should be a time limit, if approved, for a six- month period to see how it was working. Mr. Oster moved that Resolution No. 1000 be adopted approving irp_~st_~~~ fnr six menths_ subiect to renec•~al, subject to the e_ntertairnnen_t by the License and Permit Board. Seconded . Mahoney. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ZC-68-181 - ROBERT HALL For rezoning of approximately 2.46 acres from the C-1 (Retail Commercial) District to the R-3 (1500 (Multiple ~ - Family Residential, 1500 sq. it. of Lot Area per Duelling Unit) District. Subject site is a portion of a parcel .totalling 4.63 acres which fronts 672 feet on the north side of First Street, approximately 175 feet east of Prospect Avenue and across from the Post Office. ' • Mr. Suninger advised that the staff had received a letter from the applicant, Mr. Hall., asking that this matter be continued • to the next scheduled meeting, 9/9/68. ~3 -5- _.'v 'a':2Q::.,C:S - nliji?ut' ZG, 19G~ G~ _ +~-..•: .` .moved that ZC-68-181 be continued as re uest~ 68 meetinh. Seconded by PIr, Webster. •Motion nimously. rir. Oster abstained. 5. ZC-68-183 - G. L. LEIJIS ENTERPRISES For rezoning of approximately 0.77 acres of land from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District. SiL-e fronts 150 feet on the east side of Mountain View Drive, approximately 300 feet north of the centerline of First Street. Mr. Webster stated he would be abstaining from any discussion or voting in this matter. Mr. Sun_ ing~r stated that the applicant's justification was as follows: Existing homes and subject lots on the street are delapidated and for this size of property an R-3 zoning would be most suitable for new land development. The staff recommends denial of ZC-68-183 for the following reasons: 1. Subject proposal is for a dwelling unit density eight times greater than suggested by the General Plan. 2. As additional grounds the minutes and evidence intro- duced at the hearing be included by reference and made a part of the motion. Mr. Suping~,-.stated the staff has received a petition opposing this application from 10 residents ~vith addresses on Mountain View in Tustin. Chairman Halus opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. G. L. Lewis, 550 E. Chapman, Suite E, Orange, California, stated he would like to take exception to the reference of the houses on Mountain View. He stated they were not suggesting that this is a sub-standard area. His company has built a number of quality apartment areas in Orange and they are currently building in Villa Park. In this case tonight they are not creating an island of R-3, but are continuing R-3 zoning. He felt it evident from the staff report and evident in the minds of the Commissioners that re-development is necessary. He requested to show the Commissioners exactly what was intended by submitting the plans. Chairman Halus called for a recess at 9;30 PM and reconvened the meeting at 9:45 PM. ' Mrs. 13acou, 140 Mountain View, stated that she felt the density was too great. She feels that all tlir. residents were xn favor of improving tlicir property but this would be too many apartments for the cnt~tll amount of property. Irene martin, 135 1`[ountaiu Viec:~, stated tho pr.~t,l~, of traffic bother; her. Sl±e feels the cars ~~ou1~? be a problem. If tn~7 rent to 3 COL7IC Frith 1 taco ;;e r, the ~:,~uld h.:ce a car and friea_,s x'l~~l^.%?',i. Jl'.C Cl;::~'.'_?t~t'ti ~~ y 7 will. ~. zt it ~.:oulc: ;;~ ~ preCty Mr. Lewis stated that he feels re-development of some type is inevitable, the question probably being what kind of density is proper and in good taste for the area. He said the twenty-unit complex, would entirely conform to the R-3 Ordinance. This was a contiguous parcel to existing R-3. Tlie had for the fire trucks getting into and out of the unit andptliereecl would be a Large enclosed trash area. IIe further advised that the architecture would be early California or Plediterran~an. He said his company wished to have the opportunity to set a precedent on Fountain View. The plans ~~~ere not designed for children but were designed for adult living. ' _G_ . 1'V i'iilll:ar.i ..i'.~~:3i ~, lJj ~~~.: Ida Kimball, 138 rlountain View, stated she tla,d no opposition to apartments, but she felt this was too many for the•small parcel of property and also ~rould cause a traffic problem. She said there would be too many cars on that street. ' Chairman Halus closed the public portion of the hearing. Mrs. Lud~ni.f: asked of the staff hata many units there would be ~'' ~ ~on that property if ,the zoning were R-3 (1750). .~ Mr. Supin~er replied that there would be 13 units under that zoning. --- Mr. Oster stated he felt the wishes of the property owners in the area should be respected. C. ~ Mr. Lewis asked if the Commission would consider this application in same lesser density and if so what density would the Commission suggest or what density would these. property ocaxlers be interested in. Mrs. Ludwi stated that she personally felt the main purpose in building R-3 in this area is to promote more retail sales and by promoting a parking problem, this would be discouraged. Mr. Lewis stated that generally there is a formula which relates value to the number of units on a given piece of property. For this reason, they could reduce the number of units and increase --- more specifically he asked if it would be more palatable to the Commission or to Mrs. Ludwig if • the parking ratio were more favorable. ttlat the Commiss 1~Ir . Oster Chairman Halus stated that the Couanission would now vote on ___.._-.~_ the motion to call the question. He asked if there was any discussion. There being none, the Commissioners voted by roll call. Ayes: Mahoney, Larnard, Halus, Ludwig, Oster, Sharp. Noes: none. rir. Webster abstained. Motion carried 6-0. Chairman Halus stated there was a motion on the floor reco~mlending to the City Council denial of ZC-68 -183. Vote by roll call. Ayes: Larnard, Ludcaig, Oster, Sharp. Noes: Mahoney, Halus. Mr. Webster abstained. Motion carried 4-2. VI. 1. PROCIDURAL GUIDE OLD BUSINRSS Mr. Supin,~er stated that the staff had submitted to the • Commission a revised draft of the proposed Procedural Guide •• which he felt included the changes discussed at the last meeting. ~ I Its Mr. Oster asked if the Procedural Guide could be changed at any time by a majority vote of the Commnission and was advised by Mr. Su~in~er that this was correct. ~ • Mr.. Oster moved that the Procedural Guide, draft nlr:±~hc4 ^_, City of 1'usti~ be adopted. Seconded bS~ Mr. r[ahoney. :totion . carried tnaninously. -7_ , . ~T •PC 1•IinuLes - Auou~t• 26, 19G~ ~ p G~ . ...~-~= VII. 1.._• ~ TENTATIVE P1„~P OF TRACT G595 - STANDARD PACIFIC COKP.__ NE~rI BUSINESS Location: That portion of the Walnut-Brocaning Annexation • located north of Walnut Avenue and from 660 to • 990 feet westerly of Brocming Avenue. This • annexation is still in progress and should be • completed approximately 9/1/68. •Mr. Supinger stated that the City Engineer recommends -- • approval subject to the 11 following conditions: 1. Completion of the annexation to the City of Tustin. - - 2. Granting of 5G-foot width for street right-of-way . with 36-foot curb to curb distance and 10-foot parkways on ' interior streets. 3. Provide adequate street lighting on Walnut Avenue and interior tract streets and annex entire property to Tustin Lighting District. ' 4. A11 public improvements, sewers,, drainage facilities • 'and appurtenances shall be constructed to City standards and approved by the City Engineer. 5. All public utilities shall be installed underground in ' conformance. with accepted standards o£ utility•companies. 6. Street trees shall be pxovided and planted in accordance with City Ordinances. • ' lots 7. Provide water system and public secaer~ to serve all together with any necessary off-site sewer to connect to •.• ~ existing Sanitation District or City of Tustin sewers. 8. Provide adequate drainage facilities to serve the Tract • at the south end of the interior street and across the Walnut Avenue frontage of the Tract to correlate with the facilities being constructed by Tract 6633 and Tract 5849 to the east. 9. Those segments of existing irrigation lines conflicting with or endangered by any proposed construction shall be removed and relocated or collapsed and backfilled, or other- wise made to conform to the specifications of the City of Tustin Building Code or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the irrigation line owner. 10. Minimum street grades within the Tract must be xeviewed with and approved by the City Engineer. 11. All lots must meet minimum frontage and area requirements -°---~-°-- '~ of the R-l District. ' • The intent of this street pattern is that upon development of the five-acre parcel to the west, the street pattern will be "reversed" to provide a "U" shaped street for better traffic circulation and emergency vehicle access from Walnut Avenue. Mrs. Ludcvi. xegtte:~ted that the record shots that she would be abstaining from this discussion. It was moved by rir. Oster and seconded by Pir. Larnard that Resolution No ..1002 be adopted apnrov~.nn• Tentative :tap Tract No. 6595, subject to the eleven condit~o•,:s set forth by the City Engineer. MoL•ion carried tmaninously. 2. PARCEL, riAP - PiF1•-68-11 - JOIE H. SIEGhZ ~ • Location: South side of Main Street, east of Newport Avenue. ' Mr. SupinQer stated that the City Engineer reco:mnen~s approval . subject to the follocoino three conditions; 1. Applicant obtaining the necessary easements and, with development of the parcel, the construction of drainage . . faci.li.tics to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Final. approval of the neap by the Ciry En~iueer. 3. F.ecordation of the map. -S- PC I•Ii>>utes - AtigusL. 26, 19u~ ~ e ~~ ~~.: s oyin~YM-6S-11 subject to the City Engineer. Motion .~_... 3. PARCEI. MAP - F12-68-12 -HON DEVT~O1n~h'T CO. Location: Northeast corner of•McFadden and Tustin Village 'Way. 4. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT 6732 - C. J. BONNER COMPANY Location: That portion of the Chapman Tract located between the Necaport Freeway and Carroll Way frown Medford Strep~ L-o 600 ft. northerly. Mr. Sunint~er stated that this tract involves zhe previously considered area of the Wilde application for the variance. Due to tha Comanission's action on that, he would suggest that approval be denied. VIII. CORRES- PONDENCE I. COUN'.I'Y CASE -W-G121 -CARL KARCHER E)`TxERPRISES To permit the establishment of a lighted sign closer than . the permitted distance to an adjoining residential district -"""'-"'~ boundary in connection with an existing drive-in restaurant in the CI District. Site is located on the southeast side of Newport Avenue approximately 240 ft. southwest of Afitchell Avenue. Mr. Sunin;•er stated that the staff recccrm~ends that you inform the County of your strong opposition to the proposed application. He stated the staff has been informed that the height of the present sign is 35 ft. and that there is a representative from Coast Sign Displays in the audience whom he believed would like to address the Commission. ~~ Ronald Torkildson, 2502 S. Broadway, Santa Ana, stated he was a representative of Coast Sign Displays. He said that this request was for a new sign. The existing sign is 35 ft. in height and it revolves; the proposed sign does not revolve. Tlie existing sign has 149 sq. ft.; the proposed sign .has 156 sw. fL•. He stated the closest c•~indow in the area is 248 ft. from the edge of the sign. ' Mr. Stearn asked if the staff knew of any corresponde~zce to the Planning Dcpart7nent or to the County from people livi.r_o in the neighborhood. rlr. Supine er replied that he knew of none. dir. Stearn ccmaanted that he crould like to lx-o~•r what the people in the nei.gliborliocd thought. Mr. 1Tal.us cmwrenL•ed that the CoT:nissio:c has zttenpted to hold quite sericLl;~ to tl:e Sign Ordiaanc:e i.. the City of Tustin. - 9 •• Mr. Sunin ex sL-ated that the City Engineer recom-nectds approval. subject to completion of the acquisition of that portion of Parcels 1 and 2 currently owned by the City and final approval by the City Engineer and recordation. of the map. Sinutcs - t,u~ust 2G, 19G~ PC T o .G ~ ~ ,,•...._ and seconded byMr. Larnard that a IX. oTxEr. BUSINESS X. ADJOURN- MENT letter go to_ the County from the Plaitnax~ Commission advising, that.tve would have no objection to granting UV-6121. ' Vote b roll call. A es: Mahoney, Larnard, Webster, Oster. Y Y Noes: Ludwig, Sharp, Halus.. Motion carried 4-3. ~ 1. SEMINAR - UCI - h'ednesday evenings 7 to 9:30 - UCI Campus Mr. Halus stated he would heartily recoannend this Seminar to the Commissioners. The topic will be Urban Problems of Orange County. He stated there Frill be no fee, just a parking pexmit; that in the past, the City has taken care of the parking permits. 2. ARCHITECTURAL CC3_`?AiITTEE . Mr. Halus stated that the Architectural Committee currently consists of Mr. Webster, Mr. Halus, and 24rs. Ludwig as an alternate. He stated he wished to make a change with the Architectural Committee consisting of Mrs. Ludwig, Mr. Webster, Mr. Mahoney as alternate and Mr. }Talus as ex-officio member. ~ ~ ' It was moved by Mr. Sharp and seconded by Mr. Larnard that the meeting be adjourned at 10:35 FiYi. Motion carried --___s__---,-- _~ RrfAN OF THE PLAWi ING Oi1TiISSIO~I ~,,~~ ~ ACTIPIG SECRETARY OF THE PLA-~'NIKG CCfit1iZSSION ~10- ~~ . - - ;